MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3187336829 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac18e9

Stratospheric ozone loss-induced cloud effects lead to less surface ultraviolet radiation over the Siberian Arctic in spring

2021· article· en· W3187336829 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Xia, Yongyun Hu, Yi Huang, Jianchun Bian, Chuanfeng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArcticOzone layerOzoneAtmospheric sciencesOzone depletionLead (geology)StratosphereClimatologyMeteorologyOceanographyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Surface ultraviolet (UV) radiation has important effects on human health, terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and air pollution. Both stratospheric ozone and clouds are key factors that influence surface UV radiation. Here we find that Arctic ozone loss may lead to a decrease in surface UV radiation over the Siberian Arctic in spring using ERA5 reanalysis. It is found that Arctic ozone loss is associated with an increase in high clouds by modifying static stability in the upper troposphere. Stratospheric ozone loss allows more UV radiation to reach the surface. On the contrary, the increase in high clouds results in a reduction of surface UV radiation. Interestingly, a composite analysis suggests that this cloud masking effect is found to be stronger than that from stratospheric ozone loss over the Siberian Arctic in spring. These results suggest that we should pay more attention to the high-ozone events which would lead to more surface UV radiation by the cloud effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207